Skip to content

Five Priorities for the UK as it Retakes the Chair of the Media Freedom Coalition

Article by Martin Scott

March 12, 2026

Five Priorities for the UK as it Retakes the Chair of the Media Freedom Coalition

In 2023, Professor Martin Scott examined the early performance of the Media Freedom Coalition in an article for the Foreign Policy Centre, reflecting on whether the initiative had achieved the “re-set” recommended in an independent evaluation. As the UK now retakes the Coalition’s co-chairmanship, this article considers what practical steps the government should take to strengthen international support for media freedom.

 

The UK has just become the new co-chair of the Media Freedom Coalition (MFC), alongside Finland.[1]

 

This is a welcome move given the current vacuum in leadership for supporting media freedom on the international stage. However, this new role must be accompanied by demonstrable improvements in both the scale and scope of the UK’s international support for independent journalism.

 

The MFC is a global partnership of 51 countries working together to promote press freedom both domestically and internationally.

 

As a G7 country and permanent member of the UN Security Council, the UK’s leadership of the MFC provides an opportunity to bring significant visibility and political weight to its work.

 

The UK also has a comparatively large diplomatic service making it well placed to strengthen the activities of the MFC’s embassy network – which monitors specific court cases, engages in private diplomacy, and coordinates joint statements.[2]

 

In addition, as one of the MFC co-founders in 2019 and an inaugural co-chair until 2022, the UK has valuable institutional knowledge and established relationships with civil society organisations linked to the Coalition.

 

However, the UK’s recent track record in supporting media freedom internationally is not as strong as that of many other MFC member states. In 2025, the UK was ranked joint 12th out of 30 on the International Media Freedom Support (IMFS) Index – qualifying for the lowest, ‘bronze’ category.[3] The IMFS Index evaluates 30 states based on their contributions to diplomatic, financial and safety initiatives that promote media freedom. A fuller discussion of the IMFS Index can be found in a recent FPC article by Martin Scott and Professor Mel Bunce.

 

Sweden (2nd), the Netherlands (3rd), Germany (=5th), France (=5th), Canada (8th) – and even some countries with significantly lower state capacity such as Lithuania (1st) and Estonia (4th) – all scored significantly higher than the UK on the 2025 IMFS index.

 

Given this, the UK must make demonstrable improvements to the scale and scope of its international support for independent journalism if it is to offer credible international leadership on media freedom.

 

Here are 5 ways the UK can achieve this:

 

1. Introduce a dedicated emergency visa scheme that explicitly includes provision for media workers in exile. The MFC’s independent legal advisory arm – the High-Level Panel of Legal Experts on Media Freedom – has consistently designated this a priority area and provided MFC states with clear guidance on how to implement a suitable scheme for journalists at risk.[4] Unfortunately, only five MFC member states – Canada, Czechia, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania – have so far implemented such a scheme. Between them, they have issued over 1,000 visas or residence permits to media workers in exile under these schemes since 2020. Implementing a similar scheme in the UK will require stronger internal collaboration between the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) and the Home Office.

 

2. Support a national initiative that promotes the protection and safety of media workers in exile. Journalists at risk require not only legal protection – but also practical support to rebuild their lives and continue their work. Germany, for example – who the UK is replacing as MFC co-chair – supports the Hannah Arendt Initiative, a network of civil society organisations that protects and supports journalists from Afghanistan, Ukraine, Russia, Belarus and elsewhere.[5] As co-chair of the MFC, the UK should be supporting a similar initiative.

 

3. Increase the proportion of international aid allocated to supporting independent media. In 2023 – the most recent year we have figures for – the UK allocated just 0.1% of its international aid to media development. This is nowhere near the benchmark of 1.0% recommended by the Forum on Information & Democracy and even lower than the average of 0.16% for all 30 states measured in the IMFS Index.[6] As its aid budget is reduced, support for media development must be retained as a strategic priority if the UK is serious about defending press freedom internationally.

 

4. Ensure consistent, long-term financial support for the BBC World Service. As one of the most trusted international news providers – reaching 435 million people each week – the BBC World Service is one of the most effective instruments in the world for supporting access to reliable information.[7] Speaking at the UK Media Freedom Forum, Foreign Affairs Select Committee Chair Emily Thornbury highlighted its strategic importance, asking: ‘Why aren’t we tripling funding to the BBC World Service? It should be a major priory for this country… Particularly with the cutbacks we are making on aid… Let’s at least have a really good presence in terms of helping people understand what’s going on in the world’.[8]

 

5. Contribute to multilateral pooled funds dedicated to supporting international journalism. The UNESCO-administered Global Media Defence Fund (GMDF) and other similar, pooled funds can, in principle, provide an effective way of coordinating resources, providing core support to local entities, reducing the earmarking of contributions, and supporting the principle of multilateralism. [9] However, in 2024, the UK only contributed to one such fund – the GMDF. By comparison, in 2024, France awarded funding to all four qualifying multilateral pooled funds and in 2025 hosted a high‑level conference on information integrity and independent media at the Paris Peace Forum – where further financial support was pledged. [10]

 

According to the 2025 IMFS Index, no country is currently performing consistently well across all three dimensions of support for media freedom: diplomacy, funding and safety.[11] As MFC co-chair, the UK has the opportunity – and obligation – to fill this gap in international leadership.

 

Achieving this does not require reinventing the wheel. Just the political will to deliver on existing commitments.

 

As Chris Elmore, FCDO Minister for Multilateral and Human Rights, recently said, “What I want to see, through us retaking the chair of the Media Freedom Coalition, is a move back to the original pillars of this work to ensure that we have meaningful outcomes”.[12]

 

I agree.

 

 

Martin Scott is a Professor of Media and Global Development at the University of East Anglia. His publications include, ‘Capturing News, Capturing Democracy’ (2024), ‘Humanitarian Journalists’ (2022), ‘Media and Development’ (2014) and ‘From Entertainment to Citizenship’ (2014).

 

Image: Johann Wadephul, Federal Minister for Foreign Affairs of Germany (left), Elina Valtonen, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Finland (centre), and Yvette Cooper British Foreign Secretary (right); credit: Ben Dance / UK Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office

 

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this piece are those of the individual authors and do not reflect the views of The Foreign Policy Centre.

 

 

[1] Media Freedom Coalition, Home Page, https://mediafreedomcoalition.org/

[2] Media Freedom Coalition, MFC Embassy Networks, https://mediafreedomcoalition.org/activities/embassy-networks/

[3] Centre for Journalism and Democracy, The Index on international Media Freedom Support (IMFS) 2025, 2025, https://jdem.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/IMFS-full-report.pdf

[4] Media Freedom Coalition, High-Level Panel of Experts, N.A., https://mediafreedomcoalition.org/who-is-involved/high-level-panel-of-legal-experts/

[5] Network for the protection of journalists and media worldwide, Hannah Arendt Initiative, https://hannah-arendt-initiative.de/en/hannah-arendt-initiative/

[6] Forum on Information and Democracy, The Forum on Information and Democracy calls for a New Deal for Journalism, June 2021, https://informationdemocracy.org/2021/06/16/the-forum-on-information-and-democracy-calls-for-a-new-deal-for-journalism/

[7] BBC, BBC’s response to global news events drives audience growth, July 2025, https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/2025/bbc-response-to-global-news-events-drives-audience-growth

[8] UK Media Freedom Forum, Home Page, https://mediafreedomforum.co.uk/

[9] UNESCO, Global Media Defence Fund, https://www.unesco.org/en/global-media-defence-fund

[10] French Embassy and Consulates General in the UKParis Peace Forum: 29 States commit to information integrity and independent media, November 2025, https://uk.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en/paris-peace-forum-29-states-commit-information-integrity-and-independent-media

[11] Centre for Journalism and Democracy, The Index on international Media Freedom Support (IMFS) 2025, 2025, https://jdem.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/IMFS-full-report.pdf

[12] UK Parliament, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office

Volume 781, March 2026, https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2026-03-04/debates/8C008AEB-0F64-4A12-A157-368EA0118C0A/ForeignCommonwealthAndDevelopmentOffice#contribution-490D078B-AA2C-4241-8EE2-3F4DDDF44EF0

Footnotes
    Related Articles

    Four Years On: Journalism Under Drones, Beyond Blackouts

    Article by Sergiy Tomilenko

    February 24, 2026

    Four Years On: Journalism Under Drones, Beyond Blackouts

    Four years into Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the war’s impact on media and information integrity remains profound. In this anniversary reflection, Sergiy Tomilenko, President of the National Union of Journalists of Ukraine, examines how journalism has adapted to new battlefield realities and why sustained international support for independent media is essential. As the character of the war evolves, so too does the environment in which Ukrainian journalists operate.

     

    As Ukraine approaches the fourth anniversary of Russia’s full-scale invasion, the character of the war has changed – and so has the daily work of journalists. Missiles still strike. Artillery still destroys cities. But increasingly, it is the persistent, humming presence of drones above our towns and villages that defines this phase of the war.

     

    Shahed drones fly low over residential areas at night. First-person-view (FPV) drones hunt vehicles near the frontlines. Surveillance drones monitor movement even in places far from the battlefield. For Ukrainian journalists, this has created a new professional reality. The danger is no longer episodic, it is ambient. It hovers.

     

    At the same time, Ukraine is enduring one of its most difficult winters since 2022. Repeated attacks on energy infrastructure have triggered rolling blackouts across major cities. Heating failures have left entire districts without warmth in sub-zero temperatures. Internet and mobile networks periodically collapse when power supply fails.

     

    And yet, journalism continues. Not because it is easy. Not because it is safe. But because it is essential.

     

    Reporting Under Drones

    In recent months, safety protocols for journalists have evolved once again. Reporters covering frontline regions now routinely carry drone detectors — small handheld devices that warn of incoming unmanned aircraft.

     

    One Ukrainian fixer I recently met works with international correspondents in high-risk zones. He carries such a detector every day. Not long ago, he found himself under shelling after detecting drone activity nearby. Later, when we spoke, he asked me not to publicly describe the incident in detail.

     

    “Please,” he said quietly, “I don’t want my wife to worry.”

     

    That sentence captures the human dimension behind the statistics.

     

    We often speak in numbers – journalists killed, injured, detained, captured. These figures matter. But behind each one is a family, a daily calculation of risk, and a professional decision to continue.

     

    The Russian army does not distinguish between civilian and media targets. Journalists wearing “PRESS” markings remain vulnerable. Media vehicles have been hit. Newsrooms have been damaged. In occupied territories, journalists face detention and torture.

     

    Yet Ukrainian reporters continue to document war crimes, verify information, and provide context in an environment saturated with disinformation and propaganda.

     

    The Harsh Winter  and the Information Vacuum

    This winter has tested resilience in new ways. Blackouts are not new in Ukraine, but their scale and unpredictability have intensified. In some districts of Kyiv and other cities, electricity follows a fragile schedule — three hours on, seven hours off. In frontline regions, there is no schedule at all.

     

    For journalism, electricity is not a convenience. It means the ability to upload footage, confirm sources, publish missile alerts, verify rumours, and correct false information circulating online.

     

    When power disappears, connectivity follows. LTE signals may appear strong on a smartphone screen, yet nothing loads. Journalists drive to petrol stations to charge batteries. They work from cars, stairwells, and temporary co-working spaces.

     

    In many frontline areas, printed newspapers remain essential.

     

    This may surprise international audiences accustomed to digital-first ecosystems. But where electricity is unstable and internet access unreliable, local printed newspapers are often the most trusted and accessible source of verified information.

     

    Frontline newspapers in regions such as Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, Sumy, and Kharkiv continue to publish and distribute under extraordinary conditions. Delivery routes pass through areas regularly shelled or monitored by Russian drones. Advertising revenues have collapsed while printing costs rise. Staff members are sometimes mobilised to the armed forces, leaving skeletal editorial teams.

     

    Yet they persist because they understand something fundamental: when the information space collapses, disinformation fills the void.

     

    Russian propaganda adapts quickly. It exploits blackouts and uncertainty. It spreads fabricated narratives through Telegram channels and anonymous accounts. It seeks to undermine morale, inflame divisions, and distort battlefield realities.

     

    Journalism on the ground is the antidote. It sustains communities when uncertainty grows and prevents fear from turning into chaos.

     

    Just as electricity grids and heating systems are critical for survival in winter, reliable information is equally vital.

     

    During missile attacks, verified updates save lives. During evacuations, accurate reporting prevents panic. In de-occupied territories, local media help rebuild trust in institutions and reconnect fragmented communities.

     

    This is not abstract theory. It is visible in daily practice.

     

    Local editors receive calls from elderly readers asking whether evacuation rumors are true. Journalists coordinate with authorities to clarify curfews and safety measures. Reporters debunk fake announcements about chemical threats or mobilisation.

     

    Journalism in wartime requires discipline. It means resisting the temptation to publish unverified information for speed. It requires balancing transparency with operational security. It demands constant ethical judgment.

     

    Over the past four years, Ukraine’s media community has matured significantly. Newsrooms have strengthened verification standards. Journalists collaborate across outlets to counter disinformation. International partnerships have expanded investigative capacity.

     

    Yet the sustainability of this ecosystem remains fragile.

     

    The Role of the Journalists’ Solidarity Centres

    One of the most important developments since 2022 has been the expansion of the Journalists’ Solidarity Centres, coordinated by the National Union of Journalists of Ukraine with international partners.

    Located in cities including Kyiv, Lviv, Ivano-Frankivsk, Dnipro, Zaporizhzhia and Kharkiv, these Centres function as safe hubs for media professionals. They provide protective equipment, stable co-working spaces with electricity and internet, emergency power and Starlink access during blackouts, as well as psychological and legal support. They also assist international correspondents reporting from Ukraine.

     

    During the harshest weeks of this winter, these Centres once again became lifelines. When offices went dark, journalists relocated there to file stories. When regional outlets lacked charging capacity, equipment was shared. When trauma accumulated quietly, conversations provided relief.

     

    Beyond practical assistance, these Centres symbolise solidarity — domestic and international alike.They also demonstrate that press freedom support must adapt to wartime realities. Traditional media development models are insufficient when infrastructure is deliberately targeted and economic stability collapses.

     

    The Human Cost Continues

    We cannot mark this anniversary without acknowledging the ongoing human cost.

    Ukrainian journalists remain in Russian captivity. Others are missing. Families wait for news. Sisters, brothers, fathers, mothers, and spouses carry the burden of uncertainty.

     

    Recently, I met the sister of a journalist from Melitopol who remains detained. Her voice did not tremble with anger. It carried a quiet exhaustion — the exhaustion of waiting, of not knowing.

     

    The struggle for press freedom in Ukraine is not only about institutions, it is deeply personal.

     

    Why the World Should Still Care

    International fatigue is real. The news cycle shifts. Other crises emerge. Yet Ukraine remains a frontline for democratic resilience in Europe.

     

    If Russian aggression succeeds in silencing independent media in Ukraine, the consequences will extend far beyond our borders. It would signal that violence can erase truth.

     

    Conversely, every functioning newsroom in a frontline town is evidence that democratic values endure even under bombardment.

     

    Supporting Ukrainian journalism today is not an act of charity. It is an investment in a broader European security architecture where information integrity matters.

     

    What Is Needed Now

    The solutions are not complex, but they require sustained commitment.

     

    Local and regional media need predictable emergency funding that does not vanish when headlines shift. Journalists — particularly those working near the front — require long-term support for both physical safety and psychological resilience. Those still held in Russian captivity need consistent international attention, because silence around their cases risks becoming another form of abandonment.

     

    Two additional realities deserve clearer recognition. Disinformation does not stop at borders, and confronting it demands genuine cross-border cooperation. A frontline newspaper serving a shelled town in Zaporizhzhia or Kherson is not a lesser form of journalism; it is as strategically important as any national broadcaster.

     

    Beyond Resilience

    “Resilience” has become one of the defining words of these four years. Ukrainians are resilient. Ukrainian journalists are resilient.

     

    But resilience should not be romanticised.

     

    Journalists do not aspire to work under drones. Editors do not aspire to plan print runs around artillery strikes. Fixers do not aspire to calculate risk in order to shield their families from anxiety.

    What Ukrainian journalists aspire to is simple: to work safely, to report truthfully, and to serve their communities.

     

    Until that day arrives, their work will continue.

     

    I still think about that fixer — the way he looked at me before speaking, and then quietly asked that I not describe what had happened. He was not afraid for himself. He was afraid of what his wife would feel if she knew.

     

    Behind every statistic, every damaged newsroom, every equipment list and safety protocol, there are people doing necessary work — and trying to protect those they love from understanding just how dangerous that work has become.

     

    In wartime, truth does not sustain itself automatically. It endures because individuals choose, day after day, to protect it.

     

    And Ukrainian journalists continue to make that choice.

     

     

    Disclaimer: The views expressed in this piece are those of the individual author and do not reflect the views of The Foreign Policy Centre.

     

     

    Sergiy Tomilenko is the President of the National Union of Journalists of Ukraine (NUJU). With over two decades of experience in journalism and media advocacy, Tomilenko has been at the forefront of defending press freedom and journalists’ rights in Ukraine.

     

    Footnotes
      Related Articles

      Who is standing up for media freedom – and who is not? A new Index has some answers

      Article by Martin Scott and Mel Bunce

      November 10, 2025

      Who is standing up for media freedom – and who is not? A new Index has some answers

      Every year, on 2nd November, the United Nations and its member states condemn attacks on journalists. In 2025, this “International Day to End Impunity for Crimes Against Journalists” is a particularly sombre occasion – with threats to journalists at an all-time high.

       

      More than 120 journalists were killed in 2024 while doing their work.[1] Countless others were arbitrarily detained, abused, and threatened both physically and online. News outlets are struggling to develop sustainable business models, and media freedom is at its lowest level globally in at least two decades, according to Reporters Without Borders.[2]

       

      This matters because a decline in media freedom can contribute to a deeper collapse in the systems that support democracy. As Nobel Prize-winning journalist, Maria Ressa, recently warned: “if journalism dies, democracy dies”.[3]

       

      Unfortunately, supporting media freedom is not a foreign policy priority for most countries. Multilateral fora – like the Media Freedom Coalition – encourage their member states to take action. However, these fora lack enforcement or accountability mechanisms.

       

      To help address this gap, the Centre for Journalism and Democracy has launched a new annual index to try to hold states to account and encourage them to take action to promote media freedom beyond their borders. The Index for International Media Freedom Support (IMFS) evaluates 30 countries across three key foreign policy areas: diplomacy, funding, and safety/protection.[4] The results paint a concerning and inconsistent picture – with no state performing strongly across all three categories.

       

       

      Financial support for media freedom

      According to the High-Level Panel on Public Interest Media, “globally… the first problem to be fixed is the insufficient volume of Official Development Assistance (ODA) that goes to media support”.[5] On average, the 30 countries assessed in the IMFS Index allocated just 0.16% of their foreign aid to supporting independent journalism in 2023. Thirteen countries awarded less than 0.1%, while three – Latvia, Greece, and Slovenia – reported allocating 0%.

       

      The only country that came close to the benchmark set by the Forum on Information and Democracy of allocating 1.0% of ODA to media support was Sweden – who contributed 0.91%. In 2023, Sweden spent over $51 million supporting initiatives such as rural radio stations in the Democratic Republic of Congo and strengthening environmental reporting across the Asia-Pacific region.[6] Largely for this reason, Sweden came 2nd overall in the 2025 IMFS Index.

       

      Support for journalism safety and protection

      Another group of leading experts – The High-Level Panel of Legal Experts on Media Freedom – has consistently advised governments that providing safe refuge to journalists at risk is one of the most effective measures to improve the climate for press freedom around the world.[7]

       

      The IMFS Index finds that only one country – Latvia (who came 9th overall) – had both an active emergency visa scheme for at-risk journalists and supported a national scheme promoting the safety of exiled media workers. Twenty-one of the thirty countries in the Index had neither measure in place.

       

      Diplomatic support for media freedom

      Lithuania was the highest ranked country in the 2025 IMFS Index, largely because of its diplomatic leadership roles in several UN initiatives relating to media freedom and journalist safety. Estonia (4th overall) also performed well diplomatically, having served as co-chair of the Media Freedom Coalition in 2024, alongside Germany (equal 5th).

       

      The lowest scoring countries in the ‘diplomatic’ category of the IMFS Index were Japan, New Zealand, Portugal, South Korea, Spain, and Switzerland.

       

      Making media freedom a foreign policy priority

      The results of the 2025 IMFS Index suggests that political will – rather than state capacity – is a country’s greatest barrier to supporting media freedom worldwide.

       

      The Baltic states – Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia – were amongst the smallest – but also the strongest performing. By contrast, four members of the G7 – the United Kingdom (equal 12th), the United States (equal 12th), Italy (equal 24th) and Japan (28th) – all ranked in the Index’s lowest ‘bronze’ category.

       

      Due to the time lag in data reporting, the Index does not capture recent cuts to foreign aid that occurred in 2025 in the United States, the UK, Germany, France, and elsewhere. Therefore, future versions of the IMFS Index are likely to show an even bigger gap between some countries’ public commitments to media freedom and their actual support.

       

      Given this, the High-Level Panel on Public Interest Media is right to argue that “what is needed now is not [a] reinvention of the wheel, but a new level of political will and a concerted commitment by governments to invest in what we know works – nationally and internationally.”[8]

       

      Hopefully, by publicly tracking countries’ performances, this new Index will help to generate more political pressure for meaningful action.

       

       

      Martin Scott is a Professor of Media and Global Development at the University of East Anglia. His publications include, ‘Capturing News, Capturing Democracy’ (2024), ‘Humanitarian Journalists’ (2022), ‘Media and Development’ (2014) and ‘From Entertainment to Citizenship’ (2014).

       

      Mel Bunce is a Professor of International Journalism and Politics, and the Director of the Centre for Journalism and Democracy at City St George’s, University of London. She was previously the Head of City’s renowned Department of Journalism. Her research focuses on journalism and democracy, crisis reporting, media freedom and international journalism.

       

       

      Disclaimer: The views expressed in this piece are those of the individual authors and do not reflect the views of The Foreign Policy Centre.

       

       

      [1] Committee to Protect Journalists, 2024 is deadliest year for journalists in CPJ history, February 2025 https://cpj.org/special-reports/2024-is-deadliest-year-for-journalists-in-cpj-history-almost-70-percent-killed-by-israel/

      [2] RSF, World Press Freedom Index 2025: over half the world’s population in red zones, n.d., https://rsf.org/en/world-press-freedom-index-2025-over-half-worlds-population-red-zones

      [3] Kathimerini, Maria Ressa warns social media is ‘demolishing democracy’ at Athens forum, October 2025, https://www.ekathimerini.com/in-depth/society-in-depth/1282767/maria-ressa-warns-social-media-is-demolishing-democracy-at-athens-forum/

      [4] Centre for Journalism and Democracy, The 2025 Index on International Media Freedom Support, n.d., IMFS Index is published by the Centre for Journalism and Democracy, and is available at https://jdem.org/the-imfs-index/; The 30 states included in the index are members of both the OECD’s Development Assistance Committee, and the Media Freedom Coalition (OECD-DAC).

      [5] Forum on Information and Democracy, Statement of the High-Level Panel on Public Interest Media: The Economic Imperative of Investing in Public Interest Media, September 2025, https://informationdemocracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/The-Economic-Imperative-of-Investing-in-Public-Interest-Media.pdf

      [6] Forum on Information and Democracy, “The Forum on Information and Democracy calls for a New Deal for Journalism, June 2021,  https://informationdemocracy.org/2021/06/16/the-forum-on-information-and-democracy-calls-for-a-new-deal-for-journalism/

      [7] Media Freedom Coalition, High Level Panel of Legal Experts on Media Freedom, n.d., https://mediafreedomcoalition.org/who-is-involved/high-level-panel-of-legal-experts/

      [8] Forum on Information and Democracy, Statement of the High-Level Panel on Public Interest Media: The Economic Imperative of Investing in Public Interest Media, September 2025, https://informationdemocracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/The-Economic-Imperative-of-Investing-in-Public-Interest-Media.pdf

      Footnotes
        Related Articles

        Op-ed | If we value Democracy, we have to end impunity for those who kill journalists

        Article by Fiona O'Brien

        November 3, 2025

        Op-ed | If we value Democracy, we have to end impunity for those who kill journalists

        A dozen years ago, in 2013, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution on the safety of journalists which proclaimed 2 November as the International Day to End Impunity for Crimes against Journalists.[1] Not the most catchy of names, admittedly, but intended as a line in the sand, and a formal recognition that attacks on journalists cannot go unpunished, because when they do, further violence becomes all the more likely.

         

        The UN was correct in its evaluation: impunity is not just an injustice to the victims of crimes, it is a carte blanche for perpetrators. And when we are talking about crimes against journalists – given the vital role of the press in underpinning democracy – allowing impunity to flourish means accepting that human rights and democratic freedoms are undermined.

         

        What a tragedy, then, that 12 years after that UN resolution, the world has made no progress at all towards ending impunity for crimes against journalists. The data is shocking: according to UNESCO, of the more than 1,700 cases of journalists killed around the world between 2006 and 2024, around 85 per cent never even made it to court. Some estimates are even higher.[2]

         

        Right now, in 2025, the world is more dangerous for journalists than ever. As Reporters Without Borders (RSF) marked 2 November once again, on our minds were the 546 journalists and media workers imprisoned worldwide, and the 56 who have been killed this year. And beyond physical threats, journalists face rampant harassment online, abusive lawsuits, the pursuit of their families, intrusive surveillance, and a raft of other online and offline tactics used to silence them.[3] While conflict and authoritarian crackdowns are often the most proximate cause, it is entrenched impunity which emboldens those who attack the press.

         

        There has been no more glaring example of this than Gaza, where, since October 2023, Israeli forces have killed more than 200 journalists, more than 50 of whom were either deliberately targeted or killed while working.[4] Israel has also denied Gazan journalists vital medical evacuations, spread lies to discredit them, blocked international colleagues from reinforcing them, stopped organisations like RSF from sending protective equipment, and targeted the infrastructure they need to report. All with complete impunity.

         

        Like everything about the war in Gaza, the scale of Israel’s attacks on journalists has defied comprehension – but they did not come out of nowhere. Long before the current war, RSF filed complaints to the International Criminal Court (ICC) about Israeli attacks on journalists: in 2018, after two journalists were killed and 18 wounded; in 2021, following Israeli air strikes on more than 20 media outlets in Gaza; and in 2022 when it supported an Al Jazeera complaint about the fatal shooting of journalist Shireen Abu Akleh.[5] An investigation by the Committee to Protect Journalists meanwhile found that between 2001-2022, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) killed at least 20 journalists, 18 of whom were Palestinians.[6]

         

        The fact that no one was ever held accountable for any of these crimes not only shows how deeply embedded the culture of impunity is, it laid the ground for the subsequent horror unfolding in Gaza. The failure to hold Israel to account was effectively a silent invitation to Israel to do even more of the same. Impunity has far-reaching and devastating consequences.

         

        Gaza may be the most stark example of how entrenched impunity plays out, but it is far from the only one. Across the world, journalists are being killed, detained, tortured, harassed or otherwise attacked, with few consequences for their oppressors. In Mexico, for example, one of the most dangerous countries in which to be a journalist, state failures to ensure the protection of at-risk journalists and the ineffectiveness of prosecutors means few have been brought to justice for the violence which has seen more than 150 journalists murdered since 2000.[7] In Sudan, those who harass and attack journalists are often protected by the authorities and enjoy total impunity.[8] Even right here in the UK, justice has yet to be served for the 2001 murder of Sunday World journalist Martin O’Hagan or the killing of investigative journalist Lyra McKee in 2019.[9] Press freedom worldwide is declining, and impunity incubates that decline.

         

        So what do we do?

        As UN Secretary-General António Guterres once again used 2 November to call for justice for journalists, international promises ring increasingly hollow. Low public trust in media, economic uncertainty, and turbulent and divided politics provide a depressing backdrop.[10] But the bottom line is that we cannot afford to give up. Because ultimately, this is not a story about journalists at all: it is a story about our right, as citizens and human beings, to know more of the world around us.

         

        We need to protect journalists, because it is journalists who hold the powerful to account on our behalf, who expose corruption and reveal what is done in all of our names. We need to protect journalists, because good journalism is the antidote to bad governance. Indeed there can be no stronger proof of journalism’s power than the targeting of journalists by those who do not want their wrongdoings exposed.

         

        It is critical therefore that democracies come together to stop those who kill, torture, detain, harass, or otherwise silence journalists. It is not enough for states just to condemn these actions, restate a belief in press freedom, or hide their inertia in statements forgotten as soon as they are heard.

         

        This year, world leaders need to stop talking and start doing: set up a standing International Investigative Task Force, as outlined by the Media Freedom Coalition’s High Level Panel of Legal Experts in 2020, use targeted sanctions, support the ICC, and work together proactively to bring an end to a culture which emboldens hostile actors and chills the press. Investigate, prosecute, and punish. It is time for action, not words. It is time for impunity for crimes against journalists to end.

         

         

        Fiona O’Brien has been the UK Director of Reporters Without Borders (RSF) since 2023. She started her career as a journalist, working as a foreign correspondent in Africa and the Middle East. She has also worked for the UN as a consultant editor, and ran the MA in Journalism at Kingston University. She is a Fellow of the Higher Education Authority and a member of the Chartered Institute of Editing and Proofreading.

         

         

        Disclaimer: The views expressed in this piece are those of the individual author and do not reflect the views of The Foreign Policy Centre.

         

        [1] United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), Resolution A/RES/68/163: The Safety of Journalists and the Issue of Impunity, December 2013, https://docs.un.org/en/A/RES/68/163

        [2] UN News, 85 per cent of journalist killings go unpunished, November 2024, https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/11/1156426

        [3] Reporters Without Borders (RSF), Press Freedom Barometer, n.d, https://rsf.org/en/barometer

        [4] RSF, RSF files fifth complaint with ICC about Israeli war crimes against journalists in Gaza, September 2025, https://rsf.org/en/rsf-files-fifth-complaint-icc-about-israeli-war-crimes-against-journalists-gaza

        [5] RSF, RSF asks ICC to investigate Israeli sniper fire on Palestinian journalists, May 2018, https://rsf.org/en/rsf-asks-icc-investigate-israeli-sniper-fire-palestinian-journalists; RSF, RSF asks ICC prosecutor to say whether Israeli airstrikes on media in Gaza constitute war crimes, May 2021, https://rsf.org/en/rsf-asks-icc-prosecutor-say-whether-israeli-airstrikes-media-gaza-constitute-war-crimes; RSF, Shireen Abu Akleh’s murder: RSF alongside Al Jazeera to support its complaint before the ICC, September 2022, https://rsf.org/en/shireen-abu-akleh-s-murder-rsf-alongside-al-jazeera-support-its-complaint-icc

        [6] Committee to Protect Journalists, Deadly Pattern: 20 journalists died by Israeli military fire in 22 years. No one has been held accountable, May 2023, https://cpj.org/reports/2023/05/deadly-pattern-20-journalists-died-by-israeli-military-fire-in-22-years-no-one-has-been-held-accountable/

        [7] RSF, Mexico, n.d., https://rsf.org/en/country/mexico

        [8] RSF, Sudan, n.d., https://rsf.org/en/country/sudan

        [9] RSF, United Kingdom, n.d., https://rsf.org/en/country/united-kingdom

        [10] United Nations Information Service (UNIS), Message for the International Day to End Impunity for Crimes against Journalists, October 2025, https://unis.unvienna.org/unis/en/pressrels/2025/unissgsm1542.html

        Footnotes
          Related Articles

           Join our mailing list 

          Keep informed about events, articles & latest publications from Foreign Policy Centre

          JOIN